Talk:Binary economics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

1

This talk page is being archived to the history of the page. Past discussion can be viewed by using the history tab.

In Futurist Alvin Toffler’s most recent book, Revolutionary Wealth, he makes an extremely important, but generally overlooked point. Specifically, he observes the following: while the First-World countries/societies have demonstrated Promethean effectiveness at both important classes of scientific discovery and the technological innovations often associated with such discoveries, we have been vastly less effective at social and institutional innovation.

These recent, and completely baseless, vacuous and repressive calls for the deletion of Wikipedia content pertaining to the important subject of Binary economics might be quite appropriately taken as a case study for Toffler’s important observation. To the extent that the resistance to the profound promise of Binary economics represented by these calls for the elimination of this content is predicated on a claim to paradigmatic uniqueness for Binary theory and its associated institutional prescriptions, the irony could scarcely be richer. Why? Because it is precisely the paradigmatic distinctness of Binary theory/economics so vehemently resented/resisted by opponents, which is effectively confirmed by the very fact that resistance often comes from both the political and/or academic Right and Left.

Though the reasons of each camp are different, both seem to find in Binary theory/economics grounds for feeling threatened, and feeling a need to try to repress attention finally being pervasively paid to this important subject; precisely the kind of global attention that the Wikipedia venue potentially affords. To the extent that the divergence in political position and policy platforms of both “the Left” and “the Right” are predicated on selectively opposing economic visions – generally gravitating around conflicting views with respect to capital and labor - the irony of their mutual resistance to Binary theory/economics is compounded by the fact that the Binary position with respect to these divergences is merely that they are equally anachronistic and superfluous, because both are ultimately predicated on the very schism with respect to capital and labor that Binary theory effectively renders mute in both theoretical and institutional prescription; and, hence, the relevance of this case to the larger point about the ineffectiveness at social and institutional innovation of the Western societies made by the Tofflers.

It is more than a very sad state of affairs when a conceptual and institutional breakthrough of the importance of Binary theory/economics is subject to such forces; ultimately, it is a very disturbing state of affairs, and one that our society is paying a staggering cost in social, psychological and financial terms to be made to suffer. One can only wonder how many more decades, or even centuries, the peoples of this world will be made to unnecessarily bear such suffering because of the repressive forces of such obfuscation and resistance. One might hope that the beginning of the end of those forces might occur right here by denying the calls to eliminate the Wikipedia content on Binary Economics. ReinersMD 04:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

About Rodney Shakespeare

Rodney's first book on binary economics (The Two-factor Nation) was published in 1976. Rodney is co-author of the standard textbook on binary economics ─ Binary Economics – the new paradigm (University Press of America, 1999). He is also co-author of the subsequent text ─ Seven Steps to Justice (New European Publications, 2003) ─ which furthers develops binary economics, and also author of The Modern Universal Paradigm, containing later developments, being published in August 2007 by Trisakti University, Jakarta and elsewhere.

Trisakti University (where Rodney is Visiting Professor of Binary Economics teaching on the international postgraduate Islamic Economics and Finance program) is the largest private university in Indonesia, the second in prestige, and the birthplace of the Indonesian reformasi revolution. Rodney has also been offered, and has accepted, a Professorship at the Asian University of Bangladesh, the largest private university in Bangladesh. He is a Cambridge MA, a qualified UK Barrister and a well-known paper presenter and lecturer particularly at Islamic conferences dealing with money, the real economy, binary economics, and social and economic justice. In these fields, the leading Islamic academic is Professor Masudul Alam Choudhury with whom Rodney is at present co-authoring a major work ─ The Universal Paradigm and the Islamic World-system (to be published in 2007) ─ which is permeated throughout by binary economics particularly as it has developed over the last four years.

The latest books must be studied

Janos, It is true that anybody wanting to write on binary economics should at least have read and understood Binary Economics - the new paradigm (1999). However, since 1999, binary economics has made, and is making, further development and to get properly up to date it is necessary to read The Modern Universal Paradigm (2007) – which is why I have offered a free copy to a person acting in good faith and capable of conveying the facts accurately (offer now ended). Good faith, of course, really does require a willingness to read the key books particularly when it is being openly and consistently stated that a new paradigm is involved and new paradigms cannot be understood from within the old paradigm (Kuhn).

Moreover, there is a binary development within Islam lead by Masudul Alam Choudhury. A Google search on him and his extensive works will quickly establish that he is of the highest authority and explain why he is considered by many to be the leading Islamic economist. I mention this because The Universal Paradigm and Islamic World-system is being published on 31st July, 2007 and anybody who is genuinely concerned with understanding what is happening has to read that book as well. Rodney Shakespeare, 27th July, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

The new article is of high standard. The full diagram is essential. David Soori sooriuk at yahoo.com 31st July, 2007

David, Thankyou for your kind comment. The situation with the previous article was beyond belief. People who obviously knew nothing about the subject thought they were free to alter, delete and add and, furthermore, it soon became clear that most of them were bent on eliminating the article entirely because they did not like the statement that a new paradigm is involved. I would not dream of opining on the content of an article about, say, insects in a Bavarian pine forest still less would I intervene in a matter of which I knew nothing AND it was being openly stated that the subject contains a new paradigm (which can only be understood in its own terms).

I hope that all the statements in the new article are fair representations (or even actual quotes) of what is in the binary books, particularly the most recent ones. Apart from issues of style and layout etc., we should now judge any proposed alterations essentially in the light of whether they are good faith attempts to represent the books and papers more clearly. I would add that there are other publications which are not mentioned but the article must be kept down in size.

Copy of latest book

In order to improve a situation in which people have little or no knowledge of any standard binary book (let alone an up-to-date one), I previously offered a free copy of the latest book – The Modern Universal Paradigm (Shakespeare) – to a person who has been acting in good faith and who can be relied on in future to convey the facts accurately. Nobody has taken up the offer so it is now ended.

Rodney Shakespeare, 31st July, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Thankyou, Haemo

Haemo, If there had been a separate page (plus the associated discussion) as Janos proposed, it would all have become very confusing. So thankyou for taking the decision (i.e. that there should only be one article to discuss) which enables things to become straightforward. Following up your decision Janos has rightly distinguished between Discsussion comment which relates solely to the old article and comment which relates to the new. So Janos, too, has helped things along and I thank him as well.

Rodney Shakespeare, 31st July, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

||||||||||||||

The previous article was defaced and slashed by several people who knew nothing about the subject and basically wanted to suppress it and, if they could not do that, to mutilate and distort it. Personal attack striked out by MartinDK. Read WP:NPA As co-author of one of the key binary books I am hopeful that, apart from matters of style and lay-out, the focus from now on will be on ensuring that the text accurately reflects the most recent binary books. Thankyou.

Canon Peter Challen. peterchallen at gmail.com

No problem, but it's just standard guidelines around here. --Haemo 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the main culprits in editing down the earlier article. I fully admitted that I did not know much about the subject (though I am informed in economics overall) but I judged that a boon considering the earlier article, apparantly written by those informed on the topic, was unintelligible to almost anyone but its authors. This should be understandable to a novice and experts are often poor at conveying complex ideas in simple terms. Unfortunately, the earlier article is re-emerging with no change of style. It is overly verbose and dense. It needs cutting down and much of the speculative comments of morality and religion removed. These are POV and why I restricted it to previously commenting on its compatibility with an anti-usury views of major religions. An example of POV is the claim it lies outside the traditional political spectrum. This is not necessarily true, again it is just a perspective. It highlights that the authors are speaking from within the subject rather than about the subject. I can't be bothered to do the edit because others on this site will just revert it and claim I know nothing. Panlane 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Panlane, You self-avowedly know nothing about the subject yet you give your views on it. Most people would call that blatant prejudice. It is also contradictory to say that the article is both verbose and dense. David Soori. davidsooriuk at yahoo.com 5th August 2007

I did not say I know nothing about the subject; however, I did know nothing before I encountered this article and I left knowing little more. It is not accessible enough to the uninformed. Whenever those that are less actively involved in binary economics try to put their input into the article, they are shot down because they don't "know" or don't "get" the subject, ergo their input is deemed worthless. I didn't give my view on the subject, I gave my view on the article. Your comments highlight the chief problem I have with this article: it is seeking to promote a discipline rather than discuss it.

Furthermore, it is not contradictory for something to be both dense and verbose. The article is unevenly written and so veers between these two. An example, of the language I am criticising is "Because it upholds belief in God and ethics and works for a structural rather than a merely palliative justice". Can no one but me see that this is both unclear and POV? Amongst other things it implicitly sets up conventional economics and society as a straw man of not allowing upholding religious belief and justice. The point of this article is not to advocate binary economics, it is merely to describe what it or its adherents hold true. It is NOT to promote those things as absolute truths, which the article appears to be doing. This is ultimately self-defeating because people such as myself and the others who flagged it as violating NPOV find it unpersuasive as it, in the words of an earlier visitor, starts to look like a "pseudo-science". This does an injustice to the subject and its advocates. Panlane 10:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Panlane, do you or any one else in Wikipedia know that money is CREATED out of NOTHING; thin air; as a compound interest bearing DEBT, thus enslaving us all from cradle to grave; in the Third World a child dies every THREE seconds as a result. Since B.E rectifies this crime against humanity there fore you will agree that it needs all the support we can offer.6th August 2007 David Soori sooriuk@yahoo.com

---

Panlane, On the one hand, you complain that, after reading the article, you have "left knowing little more" and, on the other hand, you are complaining about density (which would seem to indicate too much information compressed into too small a space). On top of which you complain about verbosity. I cannot work out what you want -- more compression or more expansion.

You are also aware that, when argument broke out about whether it should be 'democracy' or 'equality' and request was made to explain the meaning of 'economic democracy' we then endeavoured to do so and gave considerable more information e.g. on definition of binary competence, redistribution and death.

I have asked that, instead of blanket objection being made, there should be SPECIFIC delineation of what is thought to be a problem. So, in order to progress this discussion, let us take the first section (from the start of the article down to the word "Indonesia"). Please spell out, line by line, any objections. You have already objected to "Because it upholds belief in God and ethics and works for a structural rather than a merely palliative justice" and I am going to re-write this paragraph. Is there anything else in the first section to which you object? Rodney Shakespeare, 6th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

---

Panlane, I should have replied to you on the issue of b.e. being outside the traditional left-right spectrum for viewing economics and politics. The spectrum goes from communism/socialsim on the left, with social democracy in the left-centre, 'free market' capotialism in the right-centre and laissez-faire capitalism on the extreme right. But you cannot place bianry economics anywhere on the spectrum. Thus, if placed on the left, there is the problem that b.e. is a market, private property economics; if placed on the right, that b.e. ensures capital ownership for everybody, not just the few. There are also several other aspects to the subject. All of which explains why Pravada and Milton Friedman, with only conventional concepts in their minds, got themselves into completely contradictory positions. The subject is dealt with extensively in Chaper Ten of the Ashford/Shakespeare book.. Rodney Shakespeare, 6th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Okay, this is progress. My objection was blanket because the reasons for complaint pervaded the article and I did not feel others were interested in addressing them and my own efforts of an edit have now largely been undone. I will now cease blanket objections and target particulars. There is confusion by what I meant when I said dense. This was a comment on style, not information. I found the writing dense in tone, and consequently low in accessiblity, e.g. the "structural rather than a merely palliative justice" quoted earlier and which you have agreed to address.

Problems with intro: "new understanding of reality" - a bit much don't you think? Am I going to look at a flower, the sky, the sun differently because of binary economics? This isn't Descartes, it's an economic agenda.

"markets...private property...work for everybody" - Following on from the legitimate statement about challenging conventional economics, this implicitly suggests that traditional markets do not work for everybody, an opinion, not a fact. Additionally, does "work" in this context mean involved or reward or something else.

"cannot be placed anywhere on the conventional paradigmatic spectrum" - very bold statement seeing as respected economists have placed it on there and it tends to attract people from particular political leanings. Fact is some regard it as tangential to this spectrum, others regard it as on it. The article just elevates one view above others without cause.

"Binary economics upholds belief in God and ethics" - this is such a broad statement I don't know where to begin. It assumes a single God, it assumes ethics is something clear and distinct (absolute) rather than specific to a society or religion (relative) and crucially that a system upholds it rather than the individuals participating in that system. We can argue each of these but they are huge things to just throw out there in a single sentence. It would be fairer and more accurate to say that "Binary economics is compatible with the ethical and theological beliefs of many major religions, including Islam and Christianity, because of X and Y." Where X might be the difficulties of usury in conventional economics.

"the first such teaching" - feels like a plug to me.

I welcome feedback. Panlane 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you replied in part to my comment about the left-right spectrum. I don't actually advocate the spectrum as a measure because many philosophies both economic and political tend to fall outside its traditional confines. Perhaps the better would be binary economics (BE), "X said BE was L, Y said BE was R; however, in keepings with other critics of the political spectrum, many advocates of BE regard the discipline as falling outside this traditional divide." Panlane 13:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It could even include the reasoning you just said to clarify and explain the point. "X said BE was L, Y said BE was R; however, in keepings with other critics of the political spectrum, many advocates of BE regard the discipline as falling outside this traditional divide because it incorporates the Right-wing notion of markets for private property and the Left-wing notion of universal access to capital." Panlane 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

---

i) "new understanding of reality". There are three main binary books (1999 and two latest in 2007) which have the word "paradigm" in their titles and with good reason - the content of the books is largely about a new understanding of reality. There are a number of aspects to this of which three are:- a) the binary productiveness analysis leads to a new understanding of who or what creates the wealth and that new understanding logically ends up revolutionising economic thinking b) it is not generally realized that, nowadays, money is created out of nothing -- 97% of the new money supply in the UK is thus created with similar percentages for other 'Western' countries; c)it is not realized that interest (as distinct from administration cost) is not necessary particularly where productive capacity is concerned. a) alone, but certainly a), b) and c) together constitute a completely new way of viewing reality so that, yes, reality is viewed differently, and, in particular, great new possibilities are seen where they could NOT be seen before. That's binary economics, alright? However, because a statement of a new vision of reality at the start of the article seems to be too much for you I will (tentatively - others may be angry) remove the words "or new understanding of reality". Unfortunately, this will then probably result in somebody else demanding that there be some short explanation of the word "paradigm".

ii) "markets/private property work for everybody".

I have already altered this by deleting words "rather than (working for) just a few". This considerably diminishes the impact and I do not see why it should be diminished any further. Right round the world productive capital is narrowly owned. Moreover, there is a problem in altering the text because then explanation of 'markets' (plural) will complicate things. However I will -- tentatively -- try to re-write the second half of the first paragraph.

iii) "cannot be placed on conventional paradigmatic spectrum".

Your first comment above on this ("respected economists have placed it there") is way off the mark.-- the problem is Pravda put it on the extreme right, Friedman put it on the extreme left and neither placing makes the slightest bit of logical sense and is easily shown to be nonsense. And when you have done this several times (dealing with several main aspects of binary economics)the only possible conclusion is that is that the conventional spectrum is not where you can see binary economics. I do not like your suggested words -- virtually everything you say seems intent on diminishing the meaning and impact of binary economics -- and, apart from style and clarity issues, I do not see why I should consider anything you say since you have not read any binary book. However, I will have a tentative shot at a re-write but it will probably result in a longer text than at present.

iv) "B.e. upholds belief in God and ethics".

If conventional economics does not have a belief in God and no ethics (because, essentially, it believes that all the outcomes of the 'market' are just) then I do not see why b.e. should not choose to be distinctive and say the opposite. You seem to continually object to the distinctiveness of binary economics and wish to diminish its impact. The result of heeding everything you say would be a short, bland, uniformative article without any indication of difference from conventional economics. You are out to defang b.e -- but you won't succeed becasue the creature has been borne and now has its own independent existence (and a very different way of viewing things). I will, however, re-write the passage and spell out the meaning of the main aspect of "ethics" which will, no doubt, lead to you complaining that I am biased or something. You have raised the meaning of "ethics" and think it is not absolute. Well, I shall (probably -- not yet sure how and, of course, tentatively) do a re-write setting out the absolute aspect and you will will then be in the positon of saying why the absolute aspect should not be stated. Anyway, a re-write of some sort is coming.

v) "the first such teaching".

Because you are determined to diminish the impact of b.e, see things only from the Western perspective, and are determined that nobody must indicate that a new paradigm -- which, yes, results in a very different view of reality -- is arising you are naturally objecting to the thought that a non-Western university should be taking the lead in developing new thinking. You are an instinctive cultural and intellectual hegemonist. Rodney Shakespeare, 6th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Thanks for the ad hominem remarks. We best get Binary Economics implemented so it can start upholding your ethics. I thought we were making headway, now we seem to be backpedaling. I am not out to "defang" the "creature" of BE, but I am against the authors of this page making bold assertions without supporting evidence or explanation. I recommend you have a look at the Capitalism page and see how that introduces a subject that people get far more het up. It simply refers to it as an economic system, not a paradigm or the basis of a "new morality" to quote an earlier copy of this article. I think it is false to assume that BE even necessitates or encourages religious belief as you seem to be asserting. If it does then it should better described as a religio-economic system, rather than paradigm, or as the Communism page uses "ideology". Quite why I need to read a BE book is unclear when half the authors of them seem to be on this page talking about the subject. Panlane 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Panlane, Five lots of alterations have been made. Kindly consider the paragraphs as they are now written, (and not were written). You may be surprised to learn that I am sometimes capable of responding to people in a positive way.

You made a mistake talking about the relative nature of ethics when 55% of the world's population live on under $3 per day; 25,000 people die every day from the effects of dirty water; and one fifth of the USA's population (main home of the 'free market')live on under $7 per day -- I believe the latter statistic is taken from, I think, the 2004 Census. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Rodney Shakespeare, 6th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

I appreciate the efforts you are making with regards to editing this article. However, you seem to be conflating ethics and inquality. Whilst we can regard inequality as an ethical issue to be addressed its presence is only unethical in certain schools of ethics (e.g. those that put human welfare ahead of human property). The vast swathes of poverty in the world are appalling but one should look at the trends not just the current state of things and there the facts show that the world is improving at a dramatic rate (though not necessarily fast enough). For example, in the last 50 years, the worlds population has doubled but the number of people starving has halved. This is incredible progress. On the subject of US poverty measures, typically these are taken before social benefit income so do not take into account redistributive wealth policies like the ones you advocate. European measures tend to use measures after redistribution. This is a common problem in international poverty comparisons. Understand that I am not criticising the motives of BE or its advocates, nor applauding the current state of the world, nor am I even saying BE cannot achieve its desired ends, rather I am trying to make this article clear, concise and adhere to NPOV. All of which anyone who wishes to promote BE should be doing because it will make it more persuasive to the uninformed and sceptical. 82.38.227.205 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes, thankyou, we must get things clear. There is no redistribution in binary economics (and no expropriation). I put in a bit about expropriation but now I will also have to put in a bit about no redistribution. Rodney Shakespeare, 6th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

The new version

This new version is a vast improvement over the old one. Like I said on Janosabel's talk page I was just brainstorming when I responded to the questions he posed here. As for the gross personal attacks against me (including the one just above this post) I will not justify them with an answer nor will I waste anymore time on this trollfest. Please read WP:OWN and WP:NPA for further information. Janosabel is a good editor and I thank him for reading my response here and use whatever he could of what I had written. Great job. Since the article now fulfills all criterias for inclusion on Wikipedia I have no further interest in the article. Good luck with it. MartinDK 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to violate NPOV. I made a couple changes but they were reverted, so rather than get into an edit war I think this is a better option. Much of the article is presented as fact rather than the POV of the people who advocate/write about binary economics, including using contradictory terms like "economic democracy". Some examples: It states that traditional economics ignores capital and focuses only on labor, but the labor theory of value is archaic in economics, and I recall reading many articles from economists explaining the value of capital, interest, etc. If it means something else, perhaps it should be clarified? In the first paragraph, it says "In its economic aspect, binary economics states that it is a market economics whose markets work for everybody rather than just a few. Furthermore, it upholds private property but private property for everybody rather than just a few.". I think you would be hard pressed to find an economist (or at least a proponent of traditional/market economics) who thinks only a small minority should be allowed to hold property, or that markets only work for a small minority. And AFAIK those who don't generally advocate some form of socialism, rather than binary economics. 74.70.62.96 03:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We are in the difficult situation of the above writer -- no doubt in good faith -- apparently judging the subject from the conventional perspective, then not understanding (the subject) and so ending up changing the subject's meaning. A new paradigm -- its critique and concepts -- cannot be judged from the perspective of the old paradigm -- which is why Pravda thought b.e extreme right; and Milton Friedman, extreme left. It is also unhelpful that people who have not read the main binary books want to alter the subject's analysis, concepts and proposals. I do not write articles on San Francisco basketball teams, or brain surgery, and never will.

1. The term "Economic Democracy" is the term developed by the Kelsos in Democracy and Economic Power. If "democracy" is changed to "equality", as the above writer wants, people will think b.e. says everybody must have exactly the same income (and so reinforce the Milton Friedman POV of extreme left.) Please leave "Economic Democracy" alone.

2.`Productivity' is the conventional concept and 'productiveness' is the binary one. They are completely different animals -- one is various forms of calculation (output divided by input) and the other is much more a physical analysis. They are different animals -- there is a brief separate section on this matter futher down the page. The article does not say "focuses only on labour". It says conventional economics upholds productivity generally labour productivity. There is also capital productivity and marginal productivity. However, I will make some alterations (e.g., additions of the word 'physical') to try to improve clarity.

3.. Mainstream economics has no mechanism to spread capital ownership to everybody and make markets work for everybody. Again, the writer does not know what is in the binary books and is judging things from the conventional perspective. The point is that binary economics a) knows why capital remains narrowly owned (e.g. see The New Capitalists) whereas conventional economics does not; b) has mechanisms to spread the ownership whereas conventional economics does not and c) is determined to do something about narrow ownership whereas conventional economics will continue to claim it wants progress in this area yet never get around to asking why it does not actually happen (answer -- there are paradigmatice faults within conventional economics),let alone doing it. Rodney Shakespeare, 2nd August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.51.81 (talk) 07:33:24, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would not make blanket statements about violating Neutral Point of View and then go on to exhibit their own violation of Neutral Point of View by introducing a very different word ('equality') when the specific binary language is 'economic democracy'. The relevant book by Louis and Patricia Kelso is Democracy and Economic Power. The violation is further demonstrated by a misquotation of the words in the article. It does not say "Traditional economics ignores capital and focuses only on labour". The writer is floundering because he thinks he can fairly comment when he has not read any binary book, particularly one containing a full account of productiveness also dealing with labour, capital and marginal productivity. A start could be made by reading chapter five of the 1999 Ashford/Shakespeare book. David Soori sooriuk at yahoo.com 2nd August, 2007

I don't see why I need to have read a book specifically about binary economics to know that "This binary economics book says conventional economists believe X, therefore it's a fact"--especially when actual conventional economists might disagree--is POV. I also did not misquote--I didn't quote at all--though I might have misinterpreted. Perhaps the concept of economic democracy should be explained in some way in the article? Again, just because the term is explained in a book does not mean that everyone who reads this Wikipedia page will know what it means and why it's a meaningful term. You don't really need to explain things or clarify things to ME, you need to explain and clarify in the article. 74.70.62.96 16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think your point is now covered by the main text. If you go to the section "Independent Incomes -- the binary competence" you will see that the definition of competence (plus binary policies to implement) creates (over time) a minimum capital estate for everybody. Everybody then has an adequate, secure capital income (and a study by an Ohio university suggests a surprisingly high figure is easily achievable) while, if able to labour, people may also have labour income as now. But it would be a distortion to describe that situation as 'equality' with the implication of an absolutely equal income for everybody. It is certainly equality of opportunity for everybody to have a basic capital estate but labour incomes do vary and there is also no expropriation.

I think that in the main text there ought to be a line or two on the expropriation point and also something on binary policy when somebody dies. David Soori sooriuk at yahoo.com 4th August, 2007

---

Thankyou both for helpful comment. I hope that the meaning of 'economic democracy' in the main text is now reasonably clear. I will now endeavour to put in some information on the levels of binary competence; something on expropriation; and something on the position at death.

As regards what conventional economics believes there is always the problem of what different mainstream authors variously say and, in particular, the situation when they ignore, avoid, obfuscate, even hide particular matters. So it really gets down to fair judgements by responsible people and an example can be found at www.binaryeconomics.net where in the Harold Channer Conversation video (I think I remember correctly, there are about ten similar interviews) Prof Ed Wolfe (undoubtedly the leading expert on capital distribution) agrees that conventional economics thinks it does not matter who owns the capital. The problem in making that judgement is that the mainstream authors usually do not discuss the matter.

Similarly mainstream authors generally assume that interest is necessary and rarely, if ever, debate the circumstances in which is it not necessary. That is amazing, is it not?

As regards inflation it never seems to occur to most mainstream authors that a continual inflation, over decades, right the way round the world, is not due to the fairies but is the inevitable result of the system of 'free market' finance capitalism which uses interest-bearing loans. The authors then tend to blame for inflation everything and everybody except themselves.

And how many mainstream authors start their books with belief in God and a robust assertion of ethics? The remark "There is no such thing as society" by Lady Thatcher was not callousness or indifference and not even her own personal view (she had very good advisers) but rather was an accurate statement of the 'freemarket' economics which pervades the world today.

As for the concept of homo economicus it pervades all mainstream economics and goes back to Adam Smith, does it not?

Anyway, I would be interested to learn what SPECIFIC (in the main article) things are believed to be inaccurate statements about conventional economics and, of course, would also be delighted to learn the specific names of conventional economists who say they want capital ownership for everybody and really mean it. If, of course, they just vaguely want it (we all want Peace and Love, don't we?) and do not propose any serious practical mechanism to achieve it, then it raises the question of their intent to change anything.

However, I am still hopeful that when mainstream economists learn of what is possible with interest-free loans they may begin to see things differently. Rodney Shakespeare, 4th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

The diagram - 15% reduction

The diagram is essential as a visual way of explaining the main meaning of the text. However if the diagram were to be made a little smaller (I suggest by 15%)the print would become smaller and clearer and the whole a little neater (I think ?Haemo has referred to this). Then, down the right-and side of the page there could be some of the above text (e.g. starting from Loans to Students). I do not have the technical expertise to reduce the diagram nor to put the text on the right-hand side. So will an expert please do it? Rodney Shakespeare, 2nd August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Is this OK? Just change the pixel size in edit mode to vary the display size. Also, there is a good tutorial in wikipedia here.--Janosabel 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Janos

Janos, Thankyou for diminishing the size of the diagram, giving information, and putting the text nicely down the side. I have altered the size of the diagram from 500 to 560 pixels (possibly because my eyesight is not as good as yours!)but we can review which size, or a third one, is preferable in due course. Rodney Shakespeare, 3rd August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Layout

Would it be an idea to put Background and ESOPs further up the page (just after the introductory section)? It seems to make more sense. Rodney Shakespeare, 3rd August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Photographs -- and the problem of copyright permission

It would be a good idea to have photographs of Louis Kelso, Mortimer Adler, Patricia Kelso, former Senator Russell Long and former Senator Mike Gravel.

Some appropriate photographs already exist on the internet. However,there will almost certainly be the problem of getting formal copyright permission not least because the photos may have probably been put there by people who do not know if they have copyright permission or do not care about it (they just post the photograph and carry on).

If I make a good faith effort to contact the people who have posted the photograph and either they do not reply or they reply to say they do not know if they have copyright permission or not (they just posted the photo), does Wikipedia have any way round this problem? Rodney Shakespeare, 3rd August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Expertise required to put up Gravel, Long and Adler photos

Will an expert please post the photo of Senator Mike Gravel in the ESOP section? I have taken it from the Wiki page on Mike and so you should probably start there. The code appears to be this:- Graveldnc07.jpg (160 × 212 pixel, file size: 7 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) Rodney Shakespeare, 4th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Also please post (in the ESOP section) the photo of Senator Russell Long taken from his Wiki page. The code is RussellBilliuLong.jpg (223 × 225 pixel, file size: 10 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) Rodney Shakespeare, 4th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Max Weissman of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas has given permission to use a photograph of Mortimer Adler if the acknowledgement is "Courtesy Center for the Study of The Great Ideas". To obtain the photo please go to http://www.the greatideas.org/ Rodney Shakespeare, 4th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Discipline or school?

Binary economics is a discipline of economics expressing a new universal paradigm which challenges the fundamental assumptions of conventional economics.

I think it would be more accurate to describe it as a school rather than a discipline. Discipline implies that it somehow fits into (mainstream) economics when in fact it is a school like the Austrian School for example. Anyone object to changing discipline to school? MartinDK 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. 'School' is better. Rodney Shakespeare, 8th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Help, please to put up photograph of Mortimer Adler in the Background section

I have permission to put up a photo of Mortimer Adler either www.thegreatideas.org/images/adler3.jpg or www.thegreatideas.org/images/adler4.jpg

But to do that you have to log in at Wikipedia and I have forgotten my username and even the password I chose. (Yes, I know, I should have written them down. Idiot.).

The permission (from Max Weismann, of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas) is as follows:- (Rodney Shakespeare wrote)We are contributing to an article on Binary Economics for the Wikipedia encyclopaedia internet website and also the article at www.binaryeconomics.net and ask to use the photograph (below) taken from your website (Center for the Study of The Great Ideas). No profit is involved and the proposed acknowledgement is: "Courtesy Center for the Study of The Great Ideas" The permission would in effect allow anybody to reproduce the photograph. Would that be OK?

---

Dear Rodney, Yes, you have my permission, with the proposed acknowledgement. Max Weismann

Help still needed

Janos has kindly solved the username/password problem but is very busy and cannot help further at the moment. I tried putting up the photo of Mortimer Adler but failed. Please note that the first file mentioned above (adler3.jpg) may be of a hawk or something (I joke not) and so the second file (adler4.jpg) should be used. Also the Center for the Study of the Great Ideas was founded by Mortimer Adler and Max Weismann who has given copyright permission (Mortimer has passed on).

So, with this information, can a technical expert please do the necessary? Thankyou. NB. Once the Adler photo is posted I will, with luck, be in a position to approach the copyright holder (of photos of Louis Kelso and Patricia Kelso) who will wish to see how the Adler photo appears etc. Rodney Shakespeare, 11th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

The short answer to this request is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. That page is pretty detailed and the process is not simple so I think someone like Haemo who is significantly more experienced here should be consulted to ensure that all the hard work put into getting these pictures licensed and uploaded is not lost because someone speedy deletes them as not having been released properly. As far as I understand the process should not take more than a few days if everything is done right. I'll ask Haemo to drop by here and help with this. MartinDK 14:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rodney — check out this image for an example of how to upload an image where you have been given permission to release it under the GFDL. You will, of course, need to forward evidence of this permission to our OTRS department; you can do this as per the page above, but basically forward your email correspondance where they clearly give permission to license it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". You can then upload the picture with the license you've been given permission to use, and put a note on the talk page saying that you're waiting for OTRS to confirm permission. --Haemo 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mortimer Adler photo copyright correspondence sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"

Thankyou, MartinDK and Haemo, for help. I have posted something on the main page (but do not know whether it is a successful posting or not) and, in the meanwhile, have sent a copy of the latest correspondence to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" for them to confirm permission. Rodney Shakespeare, 13th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3